Lesson 20: What is a Communist?

I hold weekly anti-communist meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC.

Synopsis of Week 20

What is a communist?

Those new to our program will likely have a few questions, so I thought this week I would break it down.

The communist agenda boils down to one goal: the abolition of private property. Everything else espoused or touted by the communist (Marxist, socialist) is a means to that end.

It is by seizing the already-established capitalist means of production (both farmland and industry) that the communist plans to continue feeding and providing for the citizenry. Single-family dwellings will be demolished, to be replaced by high-rises. No deeds or contracts will be honored. All who work will eat, and all who eat will work (no unemployment, no hunger). There shall be no or very little individual autonomy where it concerns work, food, living arrangements, travel, and so on.

To accomplish this far-reaching (in fact, world-dominating) vision, the “superstructure” (government, education, religion, family, etc) must also be infiltrated. The Fabian Socialists (the progressives) have since the early 1900’s taken a slow corrosive road to meet that requirement. The effect has been to undermine expectations in every field, including between men and women (feminism, homosexuality), the old and the young (generation gaps, revolutionary thought), the rich and the poor (continuous class warfare), and on it goes. This weakens the moral fiber of individuals and therefore the fabric of society.

The destruction of religion and of the family is not motivated by a communist hatred for morality. Instead, these are merely necessary devices to remove any regulatory impediment. That is, religion and the family provide structures and ordinances which interfere with communist control. For the communist, there can be no other rules or commandments other than that of the state.

Do not be deceived to think that the communist is a hedonist. Communists consider themselves to be the most moral of all people, against crime, against exploitation, against oppression. The fact that individualism, personal liberty, and spirituality is crushed by communism never counters the communist’s own collectivist self-image. To attack the radical under the pretense of moral high ground is to miscalculate and, ultimately, to lose. Instead, the communist must be attacked specifically by providing historical and logical evidence that genocide is communism’s ultimate end, for both the practical (resources, control) and ideological (hive mentality) “reasons.” The loss of personal liberty is not a persuasive argument against the true collectivist, but it may be for the communist sympathizer (multiple times more common than an actual communist).

Collectivism depends on mob mentality. In such, there is a need to be liked. Whether or not this is a genetic predisposition is unknown. In any case, collectivism robs its members of the ability to live outside group-think. For the communist or communist sympathizer, this amounts to stylistic controls over speech and action (political correctness), as well as a perversion of charity which careens into self-sacrifice for ideology rather than for God (we should not say “for men” as this causes a particular strain of collectivism, that is, humanism, to take root)

[The motivator of true charity is a holy spirit, and the ultimate reason is that God, not any person or state, commands it.]

Currently (2012), we have reached the point of no return. Our financial system has been deliberately undermined, and our society has been splintered into competing cultic factions rather than a cooperative libertarianism. The communists in power (and there are many) have apparently decided that now is the time for a bloodless revolution against a capitalist system sufficiently weakened to collapse under its own weight, to be reconstituted under “proletariat” rule. The war between individualism and collectivism is officially begun. The stakes are slavery or liberty, life or death. In other words, the Mark of the Beast is here.

[I do not here include the danger of Islamic world domination, as it is a separate issue, though no less deadly or enslaving. I also do not distinguish between self-proclaimed socialists and those fascist elements of society known as “New World Order.”]

Let us now examine in some detail the primary goal of communism and its two secondary thrusts.

(1) NO PRIVATE PROPERTY

Someone who believes not in private property, that is, and more specifically, who does not believe in the right to private property, is a communist. The right to private property derives first. Without such right, there can be no security in property, for rights beget laws to protect such rights. If the right is not acknowledged, the laws to such a right will not promulgate. As it is spoken colloquially, possession is nine-tenths of the law. Thus, in our system, the right to private property is protected by 90% of the law. Put another way, a full 90% of the law is dedicated to protecting private property.

The abolition of private property being, as we’ve learned, a basic tenet of communism, there is no reason to believe that any possession in private hands should continue under communist rule. Any promise the communist makes in this regard is a lie, simply a linguistic tool to bring you to agreement with whichever argument seems most beneficial at the time to him (Hegelian dialectic). Under communism, there can be no real ownership of private land, private homes, or any other article, be it automobile, clothing, or food, or even of the fleshly body. The pure communist, that is, Marxist, doctrine, both in the original writing and in its subsequent incarnations, does not support such conclusion.

There are today various powerful factions which are pushing towards this communist goal. The United Nations is far and away the most odious and obsequious in this regard, being both instigator and sycophant. For instance, the program known as Agenda 21 has as a final goal the elimination of single-family dwellings, calling them “unsustainable.” Under such guise, the unwary compassionate and guilt-driven cave to propositions which render and designate as “non-developable” various areas of formerly private property. The insidious nature of the program is that it for the most part bypasses the federal and state levels of government, and instead brings the Agenda 21 processes to the local level, where political machinations are less noticeable yet more powerful.

The United Nations also funds and issues studies regarding the effect of “greenhouse gases” on the atmosphere and on the planet in general. This “climate change” research has been used as methodology to infringe upon private business practices, and as evidence in attempting to impose a carbon tax upon nearly everyone on the planet. Of course, who makes such decisions and where such taxes flow through has not received the proper media scrutiny or professional analysis it deserves. If such proposals were genuine, every effort would be made to ensure honesty and accountability. The fact that climate change advocates are so rabid in denouncing the opposition rather than in providing indisputable proof of their claims should be enough for rational beings to dismiss them. Yet, the Marxist agenda rumbles onward, easily bringing in new blood through those triplets of doom: Compassion, Guilt, and Fear.

The Occupy movement is suitably-named. For though their ranks claim not to be communists but only disgruntled capitalists (or, at worst, easily-led hedonists), their goal, entrenched in their label, is to prove that private property is but a figment of imagination and not reality. Their marches upon public squares should not fool anyone. This is merely a test of resolve against the system of private property per se. For if the government has not the stomach to remove illegal protestation from public buildings and lawns, there is in theory less to fear when (not if) the Occupiers move to private business or personal property. Whether or not they know it, the Occupiers are being used to prove a point, which is that a “place” cannot be owned. They occupy and dare to be evicted. In point of law, they have no right whatsoever to occupy even public property, for in doing so many ordinances have by them been broken from the first moment. When, for example, no permit has been secured, it is illegal assembly, and the First Amendment does not protect that assembly. Local legal requirement must be satisfied for that right to exist. Likewise, if curfew is broken, or if security measures have not been met, or if noise pollution laws have been broken, the police have every right to break up the party (because such assemblage ought to be viewed in such manner, that is, as a party). [I do not here include individual breaches of law, such as drug use or nudity, as reasons to infringe the right to public assembly; instead, those lawbreakers must be arrested as a matter of singularity.]

(2) NO RELIGION

The standard for the communist is that religion serves no purpose but to perpetuate capitalism. When we acknowledge this, there must be two reactions. First, we must defend religion if we love capitalism. But this is the weaker argument. While it denotes the proper self-interest, it nevertheless focuses upon the material world, which is transitory, rather than on the spiritual, which is, after all, eternal. Many cannot or will not defend capitalism long if fortunes reverse, especially under particular conditions, and therefore the defense of religion fails with it. This is in fact how so many poor and aggrieved are co-opted by communism – there is a surrender to it through economic circumstances, which surrender includes also an acknowledgment that society, particularly religion, has “colluded” to protect that capitalist system of haves and have-nots. Thus, religion becomes dispensable for many who have received no good or comfort from it. Rather than defending the right to freedom of religion, there is a change of heart to oppose religion on supposedly moral grounds! The lowlight to this perversion of judicious thinking has been displayed most bloody during the first French Revolution.

Second, and more importantly, we must defend capitalism if we love God’s Law. For, according to Marx, it is absolutely foundational that the abolition of private property begins with the abolition of Judaism, that is, with the abolition of God’s Law. This is not inference but based on actual writings from Marx in such volumes as On the Jewish Question and The Poverty of Philosophy. Therefore, any person who has the least inclination to the Law of God must, as a matter of anti-communism, defend capitalism. Nevertheless, capitalism must also be regulated according to morality, that is, by God’s Law, else capitalism is naught but another bludgeon against the powerless (see Bastiat’s The Law).

Specifically, it is the Ten Commandments which may be most strongly invoked as the barrier to communist thought, first against the abolition of private property, then against the abolition of religion. It must actually be in this order, for religion itself is able to be corrupted, by a mix of heartfelt compassion and guilt coupled with governmental nudges in certain directions (though the Law of God calls it abomination, “hate-crime” laws make it punishable to exhibit anti-homosexual tendencies; and recently the Catholic church has experienced a monarchic interjection into the rights of free religion by coercion to approve, or at least not deny, contraception through convoluted insurance rules).

Protection of private property is integrally founded in the final five of God’s Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, so that thou shalt not steal it. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife (an inequality of circumstance), so that thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not murder, that is, plan to commit taking a person’s ultimate property, his life, especially in the way of leading to or from stealing or adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness, for to do so in court (which this commandment addresses) is to steal a man’s possessions, his liberty, even his life. Thus, to be communist, even “on paper,” is to renege on and rebel against at least half the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments are a part of God’s Law, the entirety known as Torah. The Ten Commandments do not exist in a vacuum. They were given with every other commandment by God through Moses. If you believe the commandments were given by God, this is fact. Therefore, we cannot dissociate the Ten Commandments from Torah. We see then how it is that Marx has identified Judaism (Torah), not Christianity, as the root cause of capitalism, except that he categorizes capitalist Christians as “Jews,” to him this label a stigma. It is therefore incumbent upon every Christian to choose between communism and Torah Law.

Why Torah Law? The Law of God, being the highest incarnation and manifestation of lawfulness, Marx knew it of vital necessity to disparage and remove it as quickly as possible. This strategy was remarkably easy to implement in 19^th Century France, England, and Belgium. Russia fell to it in the 1910’s. Germany was stricken with nationalist (Aryan) socialism in the 1930’s. The United States, however, having its Constitution founded upon Torah Law, has been a much harder nut to crack. The corrosion of the Constitution, and the morality which backs it, is therefore the crown jewel of communist hope. The high law of Torah may then be replaced by man’s law. When God is removed, the state is God.

The reality that Torah is the ultimate protector of private property drives the communist with his own overarching moral argument, which is that the oppressed and exploited of this world would be better served without such moral code. Therefore, the high law protecting private property (Torah) is the enemy of communism. Religion, specifically Judaism, is thereafter viciously attacked.

To protect Judaism has in recent times become somewhat common behavior for non-Jews. We see a great love for the Jews and Israel rise in the present day. Perhaps it is a response to the history of the Jews during the Nazi regime, or in Russia, or in any other such place. This is good, and heartfelt, and benefits great things. However, to protect the Jews and Israel without a concurrent protection of Torah is to bring a socialist attitude with it. For the Jews without Torah are the same as all others, that is, non-Jews. Israel without Torah is just another secular nation. The goal is to protect Torah, and thereby the Jews and Israel will be protected, whether or not those both or either accepts it individually. In so doing, the non-Jew fulfills the biblical prophecies concerning role reversal, that is, rather than the Jew being a light for the non-Jew, the non-Jew shall be a light for the Jew. But if the light is not Torah, then the Jew is no longer a Jew and therefore nothing has been protected or saved.

The priorities then of both Jew and non-Jew should be to love God’s Law, protect it from harm, which in turn will defeat the communist and secure our freedom in capitalism, the only truly free market system. It is a matter of priority and righteousness. The stakes are high. Choices will be made. Some will take the Mark of God and some will take the Mark of the Beast.

(3) NO FAMILY UNIT PER SE

As with religion, the family unit provides a particular structure, with certain expectations and rules, generally uniform throughout the cultures of the world. The father is more likely than not to be in charge, the mother a nurturer, the children subordinate under an authoritative figure who provides both love and discipline. Obedience and forgiveness are in regular cycle, mimicking a relationship with God. These things jibe neither with idealistic communism (proletariat collectivism) nor realistic, that is, historical communism (fascist central governance).

There is no conjecture necessary here. The principles of communism clearly call for children to be ripped from their family unit as early as practicable, this in order to educate the youth in every manner of work. “Work” is made primary over love. It matters not if the mother objects or if the child is traumatized. The state has necessity and therefore takes precedence over personal desires. The idea that the Bible ordinates family relationships and provides guidelines for raising children is of course without meaning for the communist.

The father figure within the family loses his authority to the state. Under our current welfare state society, we see that children are often born into fatherless homes, some statistics rising as high as 70% for certain populations segments. Such children often end up in some societal or economic turmoil, causing an unending cycle of dependence upon the state or else survival in the ghetto (crime). In so saying, it should be obvious that it is not poverty which causes these things but the idea that the family unit is dispensable. Historically, ghettoized cultures with strong family units (for example, Irish, Italian, Jews) have been able to make dynamic economic leaps from one generation to the next. By contrast, cultures with weak family units generally stay dependent on government handouts or else excel through dangerous underground economies (drugs, prostitution, etc).

By extension, abortion becomes familiar and convenient as a way to manage unwanted children (whether or not born into poverty). Historically, abortion has been advocated to keep down the population of those people known to be dependent upon government or those considered to be inferior in society. The sanctity of life is therefore imagined as a slogan for only those who can afford it. Class warfare is thus perpetuated, and abortion becomes, at least by perception, a “right” for the underclass. For the sake of obtaining some power over the self, the family unit and the sanctity of life is diluted down to a court case, to be resolved by several government employees (judges). The nature of the family and of life becomes an ideological rather than moral battle, and Fabian Socialism has achieved another goal.

The divorce rate is another communist wrecking ball. Divorce by irreconcilable differences is neither by Torah nor Christian permission. Such easy divorce dissolves the family, disparages marriage, and propagates promiscuity (without the threat of financial or other ruin, adultery runs rampant), all Fabian Socialist goals.

Drilling deeper, another of the Ten Commandments, Honor thy Father and thy Mother, is here transgressed. For where there is no father (the family unit dissolved or never achieved), or mother (the child aborted or taken), there can be no honor given. Just because honor is commanded does not exclude that one receiving the honor has no responsibility to be present. Divorce, abortion, fatherless children, and the like are unwarranted shirking of this responsibility, and teach society that God’s Law may be flouted. Communist control over the family unit deliberately destroys the commandment.

(4) PUTTING IT TOGETHER

Private property is the cornerstone of civilization. Without private property, only the few have wealth and power, and the rest are slaves to one degree or another. The establishment of this civilization comes through Torah, most explicitly in the Ten Commandments.

Religion is supposed to be the community mechanism by which such law is protected from corruption, that is, the watchdog of Torah. The family unit is a smaller version of that community, God’s Law passed down through the generations, as it is written. At the individual level, we are all responsible for our own actions, a personal responsibility. We obey or sin, according to God’s Law, and we repent personally as necessary. From such obedience then springs love, which is manifested most graciously in charity, giving voluntarily from free will (excluding those charitable acts already mandated by God in His Word).

Communism explodes this to pieces. Within communism, charity is a function of the state, to be distributed as arbitrarily selected, the revenue coming by coercive progressive taxes and other theft from labor. The “liberal” mindset is that such taxes are good and fair, and the more given the better off is society. Whether or not they participate in such scheme, liberals feel morally superior for having their charitable dreams realized, their compassion spread o’er the land through a slavery to the state. The state, having proved to the liberal its compassion, becomes in tandem with liberalism more powerful as it buys favors, votes, and “love” through such “charity.” Without any political opposition, this type of encroachment soon becomes a demand in the name of the “common good” (or “general welfare”) for the life, liberty, and property of every citizen. This is the plotted course for communism in America. It ends with the abolition of private property, of true religion, and of the strong family unit.